JUDGMENT
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.
(1) The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 19.2.1987 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, who while accepting appeal of the respondent, has inter-alia fixed the rateable value of a portion of the premises in question on the basis of the land value fixed by the Land and Development Officer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as it was not open to the lamed Additional District Judge to fix rateable value of a portion of the premises in question on the basis of schedule rates prescribed by Land and Development Officer only.
(2) The question involved in this case is the rate of the land at the time when construction was commenced by the respondent for the purpose of determining the rateable value. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Balbir Singh v. M.C.D.,AlR l985 Sc 339,rateablevalue has to be fixed keeping in view the standard rent which is determined on the basis of the cost of land in the year in which the construction commenced. Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 lays down principles for determination of standard rent in relation to any premises. Section 6 covers a variety of premises laying down for determining the standard rent in respect of each of the kinds of premises covered thereunder.
(3) In the instant case, the Assessing Authority has fixed the rateable value of the land at the rate of Rs. 700.00 per sq. m., which according to the learned Additional District Judge is quite excessive and arbitrary. He, therefore, set aside the said assessment and fixed the ratable value of the land at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per sq.m. by adopting the scheduled rates prescribed by the Land and Development Officer. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge has committed a patent illegality in determining the market price of land by adopting the scheduled rates of Land and Development Officer. The learned Additional District Judge has ignored the basic principles that the market price or value means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantage, and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purpose for which the property is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (Reghuansh v. U.P. Government through Collector of Bijnor) Air 1967 Sc 465. It is relevant to point out that the schedule rates prescribed by the Land and Development Officer may at best be a piece of evidence in determining the market rate on a particular date. It is possible that there may be other relevant evidence which may be available on the record to indicate that correct market value of the land on the date the construction commenced. That being so, the rate prescribed by the Land and Development Officer alone cannot form basis for determining the market price of the land. (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. C.P. Gosain, Cwp No. 4122/90 decided on 24.10.1991; Municipal Coloration of Delhiv.N.C.Jain & Anr.,CW’ l3l2/90 decided on24.7.1991,Municipl Corporation of Delhi v.Jasvinder Singh &Anr., Cwp No. 4096/91 decided on 17.5.1993; and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. K.P. Gupta, Cwp No. 438/1988 decided on 26.4.1990). Unfortunately, neither in the assessment order nor in the appellate order is there any reference to any actual sale which took place near about in time when the construction commence. Since the matter involved the production of evidence and determination of disputed questions of facts, these questions cannot be gone in to the writ jurisdiction. However, the parties shall be free, to adduce evidence before the Assessing Authority for determining the marked price of the land in question.
(4) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned assessment order and the judgment of the Additional District Judge are hereby set aside. The Assessing Authority of M.C.D. Delhi is directed to re-determine the rateable value in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh’s case (supra), it will be open to the parties to lead such evidence with regard to price of the land as may be available to them in accordance with law. No order as to costs.